header-logo header-logo

17 March 2017
Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

Experts “cautiously optimistic” about litigation future post-Brexit

London is likely to retain its dominance as the forum of choice post-Brexit, despite EU lobbying that exiting the EU could mark the end for UK litigation dominance.

Speaking in a New Law Journal panel debate this week, Ed Crosse, partner at Simmons and Simmons LLP and president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, said he was optimistic but not complacent about the future.

“After an initial period of alarm among clients—and lawyers—about the Brexit effect on civil justice things have settled down. Clients choose to litigate in London for many reasons such as the quality of the judiciary, the procedures, the availability of disclosure, adverse costs orders, the integrity of the courts etc, but it’s vital that we improve certainty about the future.

“We need to be taking steps to reassure clients that they will be able to resolve their disputes as they’ve decided. Clients want to be sure that if they have an exclusive jurisdiction clause they’ll be able to enforce it widely.”

Fellow panel member Hugh Mercer QC, Essex Court Chambers and Chairman of the Bar Council’s Brexit Working Group, said it was important not to overstate how much influence Brexit would have on London as a financial centre because of the infrastructure and services, and the mass of people here who can service it. However, he emphasised that the rule of law depended on legal certainty.

“You don’t start litigation unless you’re going to be able to enforce. At the moment we have a unique situation in the world whereby we’re plugged into the EU system of enforcing judgments, the New York Convention for Arbitration and we also have reciprocal enforcement with the Commonwealth countries. Our judgments are uniquely transportable around the world and it’s important that we try to maintain that post-Brexit.”

Mercer felt that a “good agreement on jurisdiction and judgments was feasible” and was moderately optimistic that we will get one: “The Brussels Regulation in global terms is the gold standard—the status quo is the best there is and is what we should work towards.”

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe LLP and consultant editor on New Law Journal quizzed the panel about what the litigation landscape will be like for practitioners and clients as Brexit becomes a reality. The Brexit master class, part of NLJ’s exclusive webinar series, is available to download here.

Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Litigation trends
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Chair of the Association of Pension Lawyers joins as partner

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Group names Shakespeare Martineau partner head of Sheffield office

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Four legal directors promoted to partner across UK offices

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll